Did anybody else notice a conspicuous lack of theaters in the Springs showing SiCKO? I've been looking forward to it, but after lots of searching it looks like the only way to see it is to drive to Denver.
Is it because we are just a little slow and it might be shown in a week, maybe a month, or are all the theaters here owned by conglomerates that won't let it be shown here at all?
If you're really into conspiracies, maybe the powers that be in this town (I can think of a few) informed the theaters here that it was not to be shown.
Regarding my reasons for looking into FoHawk ("Faux Hawk," cover story, June 28), the article states that "Hawk was stealing King's music partner" and "He was usurping her from her project with King." In fact, during part of the time Fairlight Moriah was rehearsing (once a week) with Hawk's project, Fairlight and I were also doing gigs as Plastic Mojo. Neither project demanded full use of her time; I never feel I can demand that a musician devote full time to a project I am in unless I can fill that musician's time with gigs, in which case a choice would have to be made.
Also, though it was late in the proceedings, FoHawk told me I would be "grandfathered." That is, while he would have exclusive rights to Fairlight's work and performances, she would be allowed to still perform with Plastic Mojo, a statement that I found patronizing.
One fact that's not mentioned in the article is that the structure of the project changed such that there would be a showcase gig in Los Angeles, but members of Storm Warning would have to pay their own fares and those of anyone accompanying them (at a time when, after a half-year of rehearsal, they had three songs prepared, which indicates something wrong with the structure and/or conduct of the project). It was at that point that I got finally fed up with the shifting promises I heard about and carried my investigation to its logical conclusion.
My main point is that my investigation was motivated not by musical jealousy but by an indignation with phoniness used to manipulate people, a point important perhaps to no one but me.
Who's to blame?
Randel Barnes ("City defined," Letters, June 28) makes a point with which I agree. This nation as a whole is in crisis, a crisis that hopefully will not end in the violent overthrow of the current government by force.
How did this paradigm come about? How the heck do we the people change it back to the nation we once had? First of all, for too long we have allowed esquires, (a title of nobility, according to Webster's Dictionary), to "hold and profit from public office," a direct violation of the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. We have allowed religious zealots to terrorize us into ignoring and practically cannibalizing the First Amendment. And last, but certainly not least, we have allowed a foreign bank "to coin all monies, control the value thereof and the value of foreign coin," a direct violation of Article 2, Section 18 of the Constitution, which gives that power solely to Congress.
As Andrew Carnegie once said, "Control the money and you control the government. Control the government and you control the people." How true is that statement?
So how do we return to the republic upon which this country was founded? How do we regain "self governance" which is denied us by the judicial, legislative and executive branches of our government?
Simple ... obey the Constitution and stop acting like sheep! You do not have the right to oppress anyone gay, straight, whatever ... as long as they have not committed a "crime" that is listed in the Constitution (barratry, murder, rape [a violent non-consensual sex act], theft, etc.).
I, for one, like the true patriots, "question the motives, operation and intent of my government." Do you? I think I will get a big flag, and fly it upside down.
You've already received the expected flood of letters accusing childless couples of selfishness ("No kidding," cover story, June 21). Me, I've always been amused not at the selfishness, but rather the shortsightedness of some of these couples.
OK, so some folks simply don't want kids. And yes, it's the most personal of decisions one no one needs to apologize for. To your credit, you did note that some childless couples go beyond exasperation at nosy relatives and so on into "crotch droppings" territory.
But the shortsightedness I mentioned comes in with couples like the ones who said they resented having to help pay for services they don't use, such as schools, libraries and vaccinations.
I wasn't aware that childless couples were forbidden to use the library. Must have changed since the time I started having kids. I also wasn't aware that vaccinations, much less schools, benefit only the recipients.
Isn't it in the best interests of the public in general to fight disease and provide quality education for all? Why the assumption that children are just increased load on the environment rather than future taxpayers?
I have lived in Colorado Springs for nine years, but have never yet needed to call 911. Should I demand back the taxes I paid for our local police and fire departments?
I suspect the same couples complaining about paying for such public services today will, in the future, just as vigorously demand that the next generation pay their Social Security and Medicare, and that they won't balk at receiving said benefits from doctors, nurses, pharmacists, politicians and other professionals who are at this moment in grade school.
I have a message for those couples: You're welcome.
I have to commend the two couples in the "No kidding" article for speaking up about their lifestyle in hopes that others can be more understanding of different decisions. I also commend them for being honest with themselves. Deciding not to have children shouldn't be considered selfish at all, but more selfless than anything.
As a first-time mom to a 1-year-old, I can tell you from experience that having a kid is hard work all around, and definitely isn't something for those that don't want it. I love my son dearly, but there are times (like right now as he starts to throw a tantrum because he wants to play with my laptop) when I wonder if life would've been a little easier if I were childfree, too.
But for me it was a decision my husband and I made based on our desire to have kids, and we know at the end of the day we can handle the good, the bad and the ugly of kids. So isn't it better that those that know they truly don't want to deal with the stresses of parenthood not have kids instead of having everyone around judge them as strange, or try to goad them into having a baby?
Is it really that hard to simply live and let live? Many childfree couples don't judge those who do have kids as strange, just people who made a different life choice. (I'm excluding those who for some reason hate us "breeders.")
I was simply appalled by psychologist Alison Walls' sweeping generalization of childfree couples! Sure, a few childfree people may have those problems, but it is so unprofessional and ignorant to say that all childfree people do. It's like saying that all parents are naturally loving and great with their kids.
I know the Independent's substandard reporters are grasping for some easy-to-type stories that involve as little real work as possible, but this obsession with the Gazette's secret restaurant reviewer is getting silly. What's the matter, nothing interesting in People magazine to plagiarize?
Matthew Schniper commented, "We quoted a journalism ethics expert who stated that a fully disguised critic could launch pot shots at local restaurants without fear of retribution."
Retribution? What would the offended restaurant do? Have a cook spit in his cheeseburger? Perhaps they would put something "special" in the pu pu platter? Maybe they wouldn't let him eat there again.
Gee, can't eat at a place he said sucked. Ah, the poetic justice of the market.
Matthew continued, "We noted that he could avoid answering to readers for any insensitive comments he may have made in print."
How do we normally get reporters to answer for their insensitive comments? How exactly are we supposed to deal with the insensitive comments your paper makes every week? Would you ignore them more easily if we didn't know Cara's real name?
Then Matt made an Olympic-style leap to this conclusion: "Could it be because the Gazette didn't want to acknowledge that after promoting an egalitarian, open-to-anyone competition, it actually hired someone who already was a newsroom staffer?"
What's the matter, Matt, did you get passed over for a job at a real newspaper? Bitter much.
There is seldom much I agree politically with Cara DeGette. With the exception of trying to make the distinction that Michael Moore garnered more attention than Newt Gingrich ("Newt's one-sided "Conversation,'" Letters, June 28) is like comparing them to Paris Hilton. She got more attention than either of them, but would you like your kids or girlfriend behaving like Hilton? Most of us would not like to behave like that "sicko," Moore.
DeGette was right on when it comes to Gingrich. He is smart. He knows politics. However, he is morally bankrupt. He is pompous and condescending. As a staunch conservative, I won't vote for Gingrich based on his hypocrisy and deceit.
Our next president should have strong values, integrity and moral honesty, before getting caught in the act. That president should not be obligated to powerful lobbies like the NEA, unions, bankers, medical, oil, etc. How about becoming interested in the American people?
Many of us will write off Gingrich, Giuliani and McCain before the primaries even start.
That leaves pretty slim pickings! No true middle-of-the-road independent or conservative will be happy to have Hillary Clinton as president. That would be even worse than having a Democratic governor with Democrats running both sides of the aisle. Where is our white knight in shining armor, who is strong on national security, while reining in the "nanny state" mentality?
Duane C. Slocum